Pinfold Medical Practice

Updated 25 August 2016

Pinfold Medical Practice provides primary care services and dispensary services to its registered list of approximately 3,027 patients. The practice is situated and the inspection was conducted at Pinfold Lane, Butterknowle, Bishop Auckland. The practice catchment area is classed as within the fifth least group of the most deprived areas in England relative to other local authorities. For example, income deprivation affecting children was 13% compared to the national average of 20%.

There are three GPs, two male and one female of these two are partners and one is a salaried GP. They are supported by two practices nurses and three dispensers. There is a practice manager and administration staff.

The male life expectancy for the area is 79 years compared with the CCG averages of 77 years and the national average of 79 years. The female life expectancy for the area is 83 years compared with the CCG averages of 81 years and the national average of 83 years.

The practice is located on one floor which contains reception, waiting areas, consulting rooms, dispensary, disabled toilet facilities, training room and administration offices. There is step free access into the building and access for those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs.

The practice was open at 8.15am each day andclosed at 7.30pm Mondays, 5pm Tuesdays and Thursdays, 6.30pm Wednesdays and 6pm on Fridays. Appointments with GPs were between 8.30am – 11am each morning between 3pm – 7pm on Mondays, 2pm – 4pm Tuesdays and Thursdays, 3pm – 5pm on Wednesdays and 2pm – 5pm on Fridays.

Out of hours care can be accessed via the surgery telephone number and is provided by Bishop Auckland urgent care or by calling the NHS111 service.

Updated 25 August 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pinfold Medical Practice on 23 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

  We saw an area of outstanding practice:

• The practice would routinely visit patients at their home to check on their welfare, deliver medication and were told that a GP also transported a blood sample that had missed the daily transport on their way home from work.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure all staffhave DBS certificates have appropriate checks specific to the practice.

• Ensure all complaints are accurately recorded and responded to.

• Ensure the practice conducts monthly audits of vaccines

• The practice should attempt to continue to promote the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and recruit further members.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 25 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was comparable to the national average. For example; the percentage of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 85% compared to the national average of 88%.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 25 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.

• 83% of female patients aged 25-64 attended cervical screening within the target period compared with the national average of 74%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 25 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice kept up to date registers of patient’s health conditions and data reported nationally was that outcomes were comparable to that of other practices for conditions commonly found in older people.

Updated 25 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 25 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

• 94% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the preceding 12 months, which was higher than the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average of 83% and the national average of 84%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 25 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people who were encourage to register the practice as a home address and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.

• As part of a Clinical Commissioning Group initiative the practice was involved in a local Vulnerable Adult Wrap Around Service (VAWAS) which identified people at risk, provided nurse led home visits to local nursing homes and housebound patients.